Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
D Vidya Sagar vs M/S. Kapil Chits K Pvt Ltd on 8 November, 2024
APHC010782162014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3460]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3949/2014
Between:
D. Vidya Sagar ...PETITIONER
AND
M/s Kapil Chits (K) Pvt. Ltd., ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. T C KRISHNAN
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. SIREESHA RANI VALLABHANENI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3790/2014
Between:
K.Vidya Sagar ...PETITIONER
AND
M/s Kapil Chits (K) Pvt. Ltd., ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. T C KRISHNAN
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. SIREESHA RANI VALLABHANENI
The Court made the following:
2
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3949 & 3790 of 2014
COMMON ORDER:
1. The present Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the
Orders dated 19.08.2014 passed in E.A.No.63 of 2014 &
E.A.No.64 of 2014 in E.P.No.44 of 2014 in Dispute
No.DRB/II/CFS/04/2010-2011 respectively, by the I Additional Senior
Civil Judge, Chittoor, Chittoor District.
2. The Petitioner is the Judgment Debtor No.6. The Respondent
is the Decree Holder. E.P.No.44 of 2014 was filed seeking for
enforcement of Decree dated 06.07.2010 passed in
DRB/II/CFS/04/2010-2011. In the E.P, the executing Court passed
order of attachment against the Petitioner and after coming to know
of the order of attachment, the Petitioner paid an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- on 07.11.2013 to the Decree Holder. Prior to filing of
E.P, the Judgment Debtor No.6 paid Rs.5,67,300/- to the
Respondent/Decree Holder.
3. It is the case of the Petitioner that the J.Dr.No.1 was the
scriber of the chit to the D.Hr Company. At the time of knocking of
chit in favour of J.Dr.No.1, the Petitioner and others stood as
guarantors for such an amount. As the J.Dr.No.1 suffered a major
accident, the amount to the J.Dr.No.1 would not be paid.
On 06.07.2010, a decree was passed before the DRB at Bangalore.
4. It is the plea of the Petitioner that there are four other
guarantors to the chit and the E.P was filed only against the
Petitioner for realization of the entire amount without there being any
application for recovery against the J.Dr.No.1 and other guarantors.
5. In that context, the Petitioner filed E.A.No.64 of 2014 to
dismiss the E.P, as he had already paid an amount of Rs.5,67,300/-
towards the decretal amount. The trial Court dismissed the same as
the liability of guarantors is co-extensive with the liability of the
principal debtor. Further, E.A.No.63 of 2014 was filed under Order
21 Rule 11 CPC to set-aside the Order dated 23.07.2013 passed
setting the Petitioner ex parte. The said application was also
dismissed, as the Petitioner had noticed in the E.P and there is no
reason to set-aside the said order. Hence, the present CRPs are
filed.
6. Heard Sri T.C.Krishnan, learned counsel for the Petitioner and
Sri Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, learned counsel for the
Respondents.
7. When a decree is passed against multiple Judgment Debtors
including a surety, the Decree Holder has the right to execute the
decree against any one of them and he is not required to exhaust his
remedies against the principal debtor and is not compelled to pursue
execution against all the Judgment Debtors simultaneously.
A Division Bench of this Court in M.Ramarao v. Sriram City Union
Finance Ltd. Hyderabad in 2015 (2) ALD 166 (DB) had reiterated
the long established principle as provided in Section 128 of the
Contract Act, that the liability of the surety is co-extensive. The
relevant portion at paragraph No.7 of the Order is extracted below
for ready reference:-
"7. In view of the law laid by this Court coupled with
Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, it is clear that it is
for the decree holder to proceed against the principal
borrower or surety/guarantor. We hold that decree holder
can proceed to recover the amount in accordance with law
against principal borrower or guarantor or both
simultaneously."
8. Hence, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the orders
of the executing Court. The Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly
dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the
miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
Date: 08.11.2024
IS
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3949 & 3790 of 2014
Date: 08.11.2024
IS
